Hello everyone,
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
During the planning phase of building a house, you inevitably come across forums about home construction and topics related to energy standards. I have already read several books and browsed various websites on the subject. I should mention that I am not a professional in this field. What I have noticed is that the entire topic of "economic / ecological home construction" is heavily influenced by commercial interests. The so-called "smart" consumer is often misled by marketing terms and a government-led campaign for "CO2-efficient building." Books or websites dealing with this subject often do not provide clear, comprehensive assessments.
In the "better" literature, insulation materials are compared in terms of insulation value and whether they are expensive or affordable. However, I still cannot determine what makes the most sense for my individual case. I simply do not want to spend excessive amounts of money, especially on things that do not add value, such as polystyrene insulation. If additional costs for a particular heating system are reasonable over a feasible period, then yes.
Our current goal is to build a simple single-family home with about 130 - 140 sqm (1400 - 1500 sq ft). The house should cost around €200,000 (without outdoor landscaping, floor coverings, land, or additional construction-related costs; our expectations are modest).
I am interested in knowing, based on the current state of technology, what is the most energy-efficient and cost-effective building option?
Energy-saving regulation / building standards according to KfW, yes or no, and if yes, which level?
Solid construction or prefabricated house?
Condensing boiler technology or heat pump?
Thank you very much for your answers!
Best regards
H
HilfeHilfe8 Aug 2017 08:31Bauherr2018 schrieb:
That’s not entirely true; otherwise, I wouldn’t have considered a KfW 55 house with a heat pump. The question is how it performs in reality, or if it’s like the "diesel scandal," where car manufacturers report fuel consumption and emissions figures that don’t reflect real-world conditions.Air-source heat pumps are probably not suitable for cold regions because they are prone to problems.
We have one, as do the neighboring houses. Our climate is fairly mild, but then we had a severe winter, and four air-source heat pumps failed. Two of them were replaced.
So, what now? Was it the manufacturer, the general contractor, or Mother Nature?
Oh wait, it was Merkel.
You’re asking strange questions that no one can answer.
D
DaGoodness8 Aug 2017 08:42Back then, people didn’t want to believe me about the construction costs.
We started building in mid-2015 and moved in by April 2016.
Location: Rhineland... rural area between Aachen and Cologne
Whether this is standard or not is up to everyone to decide, but here is a brief summary of our features:
140 sqm (1,507 sq ft) living space
Masonry garage, 4 x 9 m (13 x 30 ft), with access to the house
House and garage fully clad with facing bricks
Air-to-water heat pump with integrated ventilation system including heat recovery
KfW 70 standard as of 2015 (equivalent to today’s Energy Saving Ordinance standard)
Electric roller shutters
Glazed clay tiles
Built with an architect and single trade contracting using local companies
Total costs including all ancillary construction expenses (excluding land): €245,000 fully move-in ready
This also included materials for painting and flooring, which we completed ourselves.
We started building in mid-2015 and moved in by April 2016.
Location: Rhineland... rural area between Aachen and Cologne
Whether this is standard or not is up to everyone to decide, but here is a brief summary of our features:
140 sqm (1,507 sq ft) living space
Masonry garage, 4 x 9 m (13 x 30 ft), with access to the house
House and garage fully clad with facing bricks
Air-to-water heat pump with integrated ventilation system including heat recovery
KfW 70 standard as of 2015 (equivalent to today’s Energy Saving Ordinance standard)
Electric roller shutters
Glazed clay tiles
Built with an architect and single trade contracting using local companies
Total costs including all ancillary construction expenses (excluding land): €245,000 fully move-in ready
This also included materials for painting and flooring, which we completed ourselves.
The challenge with any calculation lies in the assumptions you make. Please determine the following for your house: expected gas consumption (I calculate 8,000 kWh for 110 m² (1,184 sq ft)). Find out the annual cost from a common supplier, like E.ON or similar. Determine your electricity consumption—you can reasonably use your current usage for the new house. Calculate the additional cost for a heat pump. Find out the one-time cost for a gas connection and spread that cost over 15 years. Estimate the expected electricity consumption of your new house with the heat pump, assuming gas is no longer needed. Create one table covering only 15 years. Anything longer doesn’t make sense since after that period, the heating system—regardless of type—will likely need replacing. Now run the calculation. My forecast: a heat pump will only be cost-effective if you assume rapidly increasing gas prices and moderately increasing electricity prices. In my opinion, this is not realistic. Both will rise: gas due to scarcity, electricity due to electric vehicles.
Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery is, in my view, more of a comfort feature than an energy saver.
A photovoltaic system on the roof to support the heat pump, in my opinion, won’t significantly change this—it’s simply too expensive as an initial investment.
My conclusion: if you have money left over, don’t spend it on building services technology, but rather on something pleasant like a nice garden fountain. You’ll enjoy that more.
One more thing: if you take funding from KfW, you need to provide proof that you have met KfW standards. If you build according to the basic Energy Saving Ordinance, you can avoid blower door tests and similar.
My opinion: the entire current Energy Saving Ordinance is a green-ideological educational concept to promote certain industries under the label of CO2 savings. No one accounts for the CO2 involved in their production and so on. If you really want to save CO2, take the train, walk, buy a 75 hp gasoline car with a hybrid system, give up the wood stove, and above all, eat less meat—then no more rainforest will be cleared for soy plantations. Karsten
Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery is, in my view, more of a comfort feature than an energy saver.
A photovoltaic system on the roof to support the heat pump, in my opinion, won’t significantly change this—it’s simply too expensive as an initial investment.
My conclusion: if you have money left over, don’t spend it on building services technology, but rather on something pleasant like a nice garden fountain. You’ll enjoy that more.
One more thing: if you take funding from KfW, you need to provide proof that you have met KfW standards. If you build according to the basic Energy Saving Ordinance, you can avoid blower door tests and similar.
My opinion: the entire current Energy Saving Ordinance is a green-ideological educational concept to promote certain industries under the label of CO2 savings. No one accounts for the CO2 involved in their production and so on. If you really want to save CO2, take the train, walk, buy a 75 hp gasoline car with a hybrid system, give up the wood stove, and above all, eat less meat—then no more rainforest will be cleared for soy plantations. Karsten
Base package for 200,000€!
You can’t really define what a base package includes so simply. Our house supplier initially offered our house for 149,000€. The final house price ended up being 195,000€ without upgrades by the electrician, plumber, and tiler.
Why is that?
Underfloor heating, controlled residential ventilation, and similar features were not included in the price. For some people here, it’s a no-go if a builder doesn’t even include roller shutters and underfloor heating but offers them only as optional upgrades.
So, I know that houses under 200,000€ do exist, but I doubt you can manage with that sum if you think carefully and want some additional features.
If you want to avoid polystyrene insulation and build more ecologically, you’ll likely go with a supplier in the higher price range. That supplier will install more expensive heating technology and, in my opinion, often include an important ventilation system. That alone costs over 12,000€ and is quite expensive. Builders who can only build on a tight budget usually choose a builder who leaves out some items in the base package. Then you just have to accept that the insulation is “only” polystyrene or that the heating system is only gas.
You need to be able to afford anything beyond that technology.
I hope I have made myself clear.
On average, you can expect around 1,800€/m² (167$/ft²) plus additional construction costs. If you build more cheaply, it should be less, but sooner or later you end up with inexpensive construction (see scope of work description!!!). The higher the quality of the scope of work description, the more expensive it can become.
And then there is the north/south price gradient. It gets more expensive going south.
You can’t really define what a base package includes so simply. Our house supplier initially offered our house for 149,000€. The final house price ended up being 195,000€ without upgrades by the electrician, plumber, and tiler.
Why is that?
Underfloor heating, controlled residential ventilation, and similar features were not included in the price. For some people here, it’s a no-go if a builder doesn’t even include roller shutters and underfloor heating but offers them only as optional upgrades.
So, I know that houses under 200,000€ do exist, but I doubt you can manage with that sum if you think carefully and want some additional features.
If you want to avoid polystyrene insulation and build more ecologically, you’ll likely go with a supplier in the higher price range. That supplier will install more expensive heating technology and, in my opinion, often include an important ventilation system. That alone costs over 12,000€ and is quite expensive. Builders who can only build on a tight budget usually choose a builder who leaves out some items in the base package. Then you just have to accept that the insulation is “only” polystyrene or that the heating system is only gas.
You need to be able to afford anything beyond that technology.
I hope I have made myself clear.
On average, you can expect around 1,800€/m² (167$/ft²) plus additional construction costs. If you build more cheaply, it should be less, but sooner or later you end up with inexpensive construction (see scope of work description!!!). The higher the quality of the scope of work description, the more expensive it can become.
And then there is the north/south price gradient. It gets more expensive going south.
C
chand19868 Aug 2017 08:55Could you please clarify how much you are able or willing to spend to live in the finished house including compensation for all additional costs and extra requests?
No one budgets based on "construction only" costs. Your questions cannot be answered as they are.
If your budget has to cover everything as I mentioned above, your questions don’t even arise, as kaho674 accurately illustrated: then you take what you get, because you have no real choice.
What is economically viable for energy supply depends on the outcome of our bets on the future. Personally, I would never want to be dependent on gas; others have a very different perspective. I would produce my own electricity via solar panels and use it myself until the very last bit before feeding any into the grid – financially irrational but environmentally sensible. Future-proof, in my personal opinion. Others think exactly the opposite.
How can your questions be answered under these conditions? The “economic viability” of building a house is highly subjective.
The only objective truth—that building a new single-family house is inherently uneconomic (in every respect)—is the only fact and also the only thing a homeowner must ignore; otherwise, they wouldn’t be a homeowner.
No one budgets based on "construction only" costs. Your questions cannot be answered as they are.
If your budget has to cover everything as I mentioned above, your questions don’t even arise, as kaho674 accurately illustrated: then you take what you get, because you have no real choice.
What is economically viable for energy supply depends on the outcome of our bets on the future. Personally, I would never want to be dependent on gas; others have a very different perspective. I would produce my own electricity via solar panels and use it myself until the very last bit before feeding any into the grid – financially irrational but environmentally sensible. Future-proof, in my personal opinion. Others think exactly the opposite.
How can your questions be answered under these conditions? The “economic viability” of building a house is highly subjective.
The only objective truth—that building a new single-family house is inherently uneconomic (in every respect)—is the only fact and also the only thing a homeowner must ignore; otherwise, they wouldn’t be a homeowner.
B
Bauherr20188 Aug 2017 09:15ypg schrieb:
€200,000 basic package!
You can't really define what a basic package is so simply. Our house provider originally offered our house for €149,000. The final price ended up being €195,000 without any upgrades from the electrician, plumber, or tiler.
Why is that?
Underfloor heating, controlled ventilation systems, etc., were not included in the price.
For some here, that’s unacceptable if a house provider hasn’t even included shutters and underfloor heating in the basic price but instead offers them as optional upgrades.
So I know that there are houses available for under €200,000, but I doubt you can manage with that amount if you consider what features you really want.
If you want to avoid polystyrene insulation and build more ecologically, you usually end up choosing a provider in a higher price segment. They will then also install more expensive heating technology and possibly the ventilation system, which in my opinion is important. This can cost more than €12,000 and significantly increase expenses. Homeowners who can only afford to build cheaply inevitably choose a builder who omits some features from the basic package, but then they have to accept that it’s "only" polystyrene insulation or just a gas heating system.
You have to be able to afford any additional technical features.
I hope I have made myself clear.
Calculate an average of €1,800 per square meter (approximately $167 per square foot) plus additional construction-related costs. When building more cheaply, it may be less, but at some point, you get into low-cost construction (see the construction specifications!). The higher the quality in the construction specifications, the more expensive it can become.
And then there’s the north-south price difference. Prices tend to be higher in the southern regions.Currently, the offers are around €280,000 to €300,000 for the entire project.
Similar topics